The first player who comes to mind when considering Miami's recent busts is receiver and return man Ted Ginn. The ninth overall pick has come to symbolize the lost 2007 season under former general manager Randy Mueller and one-and-done coach Cam Cameron. The Dolphins had 10 draft choices in 2007, including four in the top 71, but only Ginn, defensive tackle Paul Soliai and punter Brandon Fields remain on the team. That class was a collective bust. Is it possible, however, that 2006 was worse? The Dolphins drafted five players (albeit three of them in the seventh round) and only one is on the roster. Defensive back Jason Allen, the 16th overall choice, has started 12 games in four seasons.

The Dolphins have been overhauled so much under football operations czar Bill Parcells, most players on their roster haven't been around long enough to label draft gems or duds. Discoveries from previous regimes aren't with the club any longer. The Dolphins drafted guard Rex Hadnot in the sixth round in 2004. Tight end Randy McMichael, selected in 2002, might be the best fourth-round pick in franchise history. The greatest find on Miami's roster -- by far -- has been safety Yeremiah Bell, a sixth-round long shot from Division I-AA Eastern Kentucky. Bell didn't make the team as a rookie, fought his way up from the practice squad, overcame early injury problems and played in the Pro Bowl a few weeks ago.

Miami's draft history over the past 10 years has been quite depressing. I am hoping that is changing, but I don't like 2 of our top four picks from last year already. I think so far Parcells has drafted ok, but not great; then again time will tell the whole story.

I don't know if Merling has disapointed too much. I think he has developed more slowly than people would have hoped, but I see a break-out season for him this upcoming year.

He's playing behind Randy Starks who played LIGHTS OUT ALL SEASON and was IMO our DMVP.

Merling has not disappointed anyone. He has a role and has played it well.

agree with that ,but compared to k langford for me merling has disappointed me

for basically a 1st round pick [1st in 2nd rnd] shouldnt we be getting more from him rather than being a role player???

iam not sure merling will ever be a starter in a 3-4 def

Langford has seemingly done better because he didn't have anyone of playing in front of him. Merling is built for the 3-4 and will play very well once he doesn't have a star in front of him. He already plays very well. And no, not at a position where all you have are role players. Every team in the league has a DL rotation. Even the starters don't play every down in most cases. Being labeled a starter on this team is almost useless as they believe in adhering to snap counts, and having role players play specific roles. Merling does his job. What more do you want? An interception on perhaps the most highly rated QB of all time because he, in true veteran fashion, read the screen and dropped back accordingly, running it back for a TD in a game that decides whether we win the division and get in to the playoffs?

_________________A good RB is nice, a good QB even better, but it's best to be able to stop someone first.

Langford has seemingly done better because he didn't have anyone of playing in front of him. Merling is built for the 3-4 and will play very well once he doesn't have a star in front of him. He already plays very well. And no, not at a position where all you have are role players. Every team in the league has a DL rotation. Even the starters don't play every down in most cases. Being labeled a starter on this team is almost useless as they believe in adhering to snap counts, and having role players play specific roles. Merling does his job. What more do you want? An interception on perhaps the most highly rated QB of all time because he, in true veteran fashion, read the screen and dropped back accordingly, running it back for a TD in a game that decides whether we win the division and get in to the playoffs?

Couldn't agree more. Merling has been great with what time he has been given. Once he is given more snaps he will have more chances to impress, calling him a disappointment is crazy.

Saying Merling has disappointed and labeling him a complete disappointment are two very different things. Miami coaches and FO guys have already said that they "are disappointed" Merling hasn't developed as quickly. He's made plays, but he is what the brass hoped he would be, especially given where he was drafted. Even more telling is that they were shocked he was still on the board when they drafted, so they expected him to be an impact first rounder.

Saying Merling has disappointed and labeling him a complete disappointment are two very different things.

Disappointment -

3.a person or thing that disappoints

Would you like credit for being able to use a dictionary? If you can't distinguish the difference between being disappointed that a guy has not developed to expectation from someone who is a complete disappointment on the field then I can't help you. No one called him a disappointment. But we can argue semantics all day if you'd like.

Semantics -

3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

Saying Merling has disappointed and labeling him a complete disappointment are two very different things.

Disappointment -

3.a person or thing that disappoints

Would you like credit for being able to use a dictionary? If you can't distinguish the difference between being disappointed that a guy has not developed to expectation from someone who is a complete disappointment on the field then I can't help you. No one called him a disappointment. But we can argue semantics all day if you'd like.

Semantics -

3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

No need to get upset. I get the difference, I just wanted to be like Rich for once but I guess I'm just not as intimidating as he is.

You're the one that said that Merling being disappointing and being a disappointment are two different things. You were the one arguing semantics, and Joe simply pointed out that those things aren't different at all.

You're the one that said that Merling being disappointing and being a disappointment are two different things. You were the one arguing semantics, and Joe simply pointed out that those things aren't different at all.

What you quoted from my post came from the dictionary which I copied and pasted, not something I wrote. Its the example they provide to explain the definition. If you feel those things arent that different its your opinion and you're entitled to it. Can we please get over the fact that a player can be disappointing in relation to his draft position/current role on the team and not be a complete disappointment ie "bust."

Can we please get over the fact that a player can be disappointing in relation to his draft position/current role on the team and not be a complete disappointment ie "bust."

No because you want to be able to say he's not a disappointment based on your definition, but somebody else says he's a disappointment based on their definition and you say they're arguing semantics.You think a complete disappointment is a "bust." Someone else thinks a disappointment is someone that is disappointing.

Can we please get over the fact that a player can be disappointing in relation to his draft position/current role on the team and not be a complete disappointment ie "bust."

No because you want to be able to say he's not a disappointment based on your definition, but somebody else says he's a disappointment based on their definition and you say they're arguing semantics.You think a complete disappointment is a "bust." Someone else thinks a disappointment is someone that is disappointing.

You should read all previous posts before chiming in because you are now saying Joe is calling Merling a disappointment when in fact he originally said he's not at all. I agree that I'm arguing semantics because its about interpretation, not just what the dictionary says. I'm saying he didnt have to be so rigid. He threw a dictionary definition at me to be clever and I responded.

No because you want to be able to say he's not a disappointment based on your definition, but somebody else says he's a disappointment based on their definition

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are commenting on the discussion Joe and I were having.

Joe never called him a disappointment, just challenged me having a different interpretation of the word. I responded, end of story, we agreed to disagree. You seem to keep wanting to resurrect it, not sure I understand why. People thought I called him a disappointment and I clarified my interpretation of it. I'm not sure where you are trying to steer this?